Re: [edk2-devel] UefiCpuPkg: Proposal to enable/disable AP parallel

2024-12-03 Thread Zhao, Jason via groups.io
Hi Zhiguang, May be a fool question. If we follow the 1st solution, do we still have any API to enable/disable AP one by one? How can we handle any scenario like only enable all Aps with specific core type (only big cores or only Atoms) if this API is changed to enable all Aps. BRs/Jason From:

Re: [edk2-devel] UefiCpuPkg: Proposal to enable/disable AP parallel

2024-11-25 Thread Zhiguang Liu via groups.io
Thanks all for your comments. Let me reply one by one. Hi Jason, Yes, we still support enable/disable AP one by one. Caller can still give an AP processer ID to disable/enable this AP. Just add a capability to allow caller give a all Fs value to disable/enable all APs. Hi Jiaxin, Solution 2 wil

Re: [edk2-devel] UefiCpuPkg: Proposal to enable/disable AP parallel

2024-11-21 Thread Michael D Kinney via groups.io
If an AP has been disabled on purpose due to a failure and is expected to never be enabled, then a broadcast mechanism would not be a good idea. Instead, we should consider enhancing EFI_MP_SERVICES_ENABLEDISABLEAP to support a non-blocking operation so it can be called in a loop for a group of

Re: [edk2-devel] UefiCpuPkg: Proposal to enable/disable AP parallel

2024-11-21 Thread Wu, Jiaxin via groups.io
Solution 1, it's not kind of spec violating. Instead, it's to add a new capability to the existing interface, and it's a compatible change, no impact to existing interface usage. I recall we have a guideline that prioritizes code-first approaches if there are no compatibility issues. Mike and Ra